It's mean-spirited because you refer to my colleagues as "idiots," when I can assure you that they are not.

It's ignorant because you appear to have no idea how the assigned-patent process works in a large company. If you wish to have a discussion about the merits of this particular patent or the process in general, go right ahead. Just leave the personal attacks out of it.

If you are wrong, any number of apologies would not cover you for this: you are making a direct public attack on someone who might well be an innocent party.

The way you have written it is potentially libellous - libel is illegal (perhaps even in the USA) for a reason.

It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent?

All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.

In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." to consider. This is basic photography.

Knocking out a background nicely with backlighting and an infinity curve so that the back is brighter than your foreground highlights, so you can then tune the camera to get the back all white and just chop out your subject easily is a technique that predates digital photography.

You may note that the advance they describe is that this technique negates the need for computer processing. There is a very good reason for that, and that is because when this technique was developed, computer processing was done on hand cranked adding machines.

The fact that they were issued a patent says otherwise.

Yes, it does. They got a patent for the process, meaning had they not, someone else might have. Hence them "beating" others to the patent.

I'm not arguing about the validity of the patent, or really, the system in general. I'm saying, it's better to have the patent yourself then be sued by a troll holding a patent for a ridiculous process you're using, resulting in a "colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned."

Unfortunately, this is the state of the world; some players filing over-arching, stupid patents, others filing defensive patents for leverage and protection. Until they sue someone for this, it's impossible to know the intent. Regardless, it corrupts the system.

The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. Because that's what companies in capitalism do, using everything to their advantage.

It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents.

The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.

Wow, that's such a loaded analogy.

You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion.

All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.

I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.

How do you think the patent system ended up granting basically everything in the first place?

Like with practically everything benefiting huge companies in the US, it's the result of intense corporate bri... lobbying.

Well, this is the effect of the democracy that you people have created and nurtured over the years. Why do you want to blame the companies that have stepped in to take advantage of the rules you have set forth? And yes, that includes giving them the power to affect the rules.

I haven't nurtured this form of democracy at all (lobbying), I'm from Sweden, not the US. Nor do I believe that the actual voters have 'nurtured' this form of paid influence, if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this.

They deserve everything that is happening to them precisely because of their in-action through their crappy voting. It may not be nice, but that's the reality of it. At this stage, only radical things will fix it.

"if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this."

Yes, there is the rub. They probably would vote that way, I agree with you. Except they can't. They're divided and powerless to demand any sort of referendum. Heck, one need only look at recent approval polls for congress/president/law to see that the majority are NOT happy. Yet, they plow on and do nothing except whine and vote.

The most troubling thing is that this diagram: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%...

Depicts pretty standard butterfly/paramount lighting (less the lower reflector) that is taught in every college photography program in the world. I also worry that they appear to be photographers outside of their jobs at Amazon, what kind of a competitive advantage is this? I have no clue as I'm not a lawyer.

We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. Vigilante "justice" should not be facilitated, especially not against people who got their names slapped on a patent. If the patent is illegitimate, bring suit under all applicable charges, including considerations for the malicious intent you so obviously believe the inventors held.

Let's never build a list like the one you've proposed.

Unfortunately we don't. There is great asymmetry in favour of the patent holder, a patent is presumed valid until challenged, and that is easily a six-digit sum. Most people and most small companies don't have that kind of money lying around to state their case that Amazon is patenting basic techniques in studio photography.

And there is the problem. This outcome appears unjust because it is. The civilized way of justice through the courts is not available, consequently we are seeing calls for vigilantism. Someone will uphold the law, and if it isn't the Executive and Congress the street will step in to fill the void.

No it doesn't, and that's the problem. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope and tends to do more harm than good, but let's not pretend the motivation doesn't exist. Because it does. In spades.

Public shaming goes after people that do immoral things.

This is not about vigilantism.

"Public shaming" is not a good behavior in civilized society. Think about the patent from the perspective of the authors. Consider their motives. It's very unlikely that the motive is "I'm going to sue everyone who takes a picture on a white background." Consider the importance of a defensive patent portfolio and the likelihood that a case that actually did cite this patent would fail. It's entirely plausible that the patent was acquired for purely defensive purposes ("If we don't claim it, a less-good entity will, and they'll use it irresponsibly").

Even after all this, perhaps the authors simply have a different perspective than many on HN. It's not actually objectively evil to have differing or uncommon beliefs on what comprises a valid patent. Does that disagreement really justify the complete obliteration of the person's privacy?

I keep posting about this on HN and people keep ignoring it, but this is just another example of the rapid deterioration of civil society. If people can't even disagree on a matter as blase as intellectual property law without getting doxxed and run out of their homes, we have a very serious problem with major ramifications for the continued existence of free society.

People at Amazon are not absolved of making poor ethical decisions, just because they are doing it in the name of a corporation.